Argh!  I hate it when Dan Hynes is called a machine candidate.  He's less a machine candidate than Attorney General Lisa Madigan, whose father is Speaker of the Illinois House and has run the IL Democratic Party for decades.  You never hear her referred to as such.
Hynes's "machine" is the goodwill his dad built in one ward on the southwest side of Chicago.  
I like Dan.  I think he's a true progressive and I'm proud to have voted for him over Obama in the primary.
Hynes marched in Sunday's gay pride parade, although his reelection is assured.
Where was Barack?  
Probably at a fundraiser for Lieberman or something.

I think that much of the problem I personally have with Obama is that it feels as if he's being shoved down my throat.  The media seems to have anointed him the king of the party on the basis of one particular speech and because one day he could become the first black president.  However, he hasn't done anything to merit the kind of attention heaped upon him (in fairness, he hasn't been in office long enough to take a prominent policymaking role within the party).  Moreover, whenever he's presented with the opportunity to speak on the national stage, he seems to offer only empty platitudes and soft criticism of other party members.  Maybe that's because it's the path of least resistance in today's media climate, but it does nothing to reinforce the narrative that he is the savior of the party.

This is somewhat enlightening. I thought Obama voted for the bankruptcy bill. That said, what bothers me is that Obama has been careful to the point of silence on the Issue. What's maddening about this is that he has rhetorical gifts that Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, and virtually all other Democratic spokespeople lack--can't we leave the legislative dirtywork people who're less good on TV? What's more, Obama has credibility on the war because he was against it from the beginning. I think it's instructive that 2 potential Democratic candidates, one a woman, the other black, are essentially treading the same cautious path. Problem is, it leads to obscurity.

As for Obama's liberal record  -- while voting against middle incomers on economic matters, William greider described such behavior in a piece from 2002 called Enron Democrats

Apostasy is a safe vote for Democrats, at least on financial issues that are obscure and complicated. Rank-and-file voters cannot connect the dots in order to recognize the betrayal; Republicans cannot attack them for their pro-banker votes. And labor-liberal groups--the valiant people who actively oppose these business-banking "reforms" in the legislative arena--will not attack either. This is because the Democrats always offer a billboard agenda at election time--a few important "people issues" like healthcare, Social Security, the environment--to draw a sharp contrast with the wicked Republicans. Other complaints are silenced, especially less familiar ones. Disappointed activists, from organized labor to consumer, civil rights and women's groups, swallow their anger and fall into line. Unlike the right, progressives feel too weak or scattered to propose their own litmus test, much less enforce it.

Enron Democrats understand this. They are masters at stroking their discontented constituencies while voting against them on bedrock economic issues....

We need a new name for these kind of Democrats who vote liberal on the obvious issues while stabbing middle incomers in the back at every obscure opportunity....

Corporacrats?

My only problem with Obama is he doesn't seem to figure out to capitalize on the media attention around him.  He was given a big stick and he didn't use it.  

He sometimes waffles on an issue, but comes around in the end.  

He could be a very vocal leader, and the media was willing to let him be such.  But then he didn't take advantage, in my view.

Even without a powerful policy making role, he could speak out on big issues and take big stands.  Such as the censure resolution.  If he had stood by Feingold, it would have been just as big as Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, or Durbin standing by Feingold.  

Obama's letter said that he was frustrated and angry, but didn't think censure was justified...
That pissed me off.  But overall, Obama is good for the party.  Future President?  No, I don't see that.  I think you need to take strong stands on big issues to earn my respect for a presidential bid.  And Obama has failed there, where a guy like Feingold has succeeded.

And Hynes was totally a Chicago Democratic Machine Candidate.  He was Daley's boy.  Daley thought he was calling the shots when he got Rod elected.  Daley over-reached.  Now, he's got guys like Guitierrez and, possibly, Jackson Jr. gunning for his job.

Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

He says he's a Christian, but he lies about secular Dems all the time, just like a Republican.

He's no Christian in my eyes.  Not until he stops lying about me.

I have more respect for Jesus than he does.  I will not tarnish his teachings by associating them with a hypocrite.

I'm serious.  I've had it with the scribes and pharisees.  I have no more use for the Pharisee Left than I do for the Pharisee Right.

Obama is still anti-war, but chose to co-sponsor Levin's amendment rather than Kerry's.  Its not perfect, but its better than voting both down.

Obama is one of the few people in our Government who shows geniune concern for the Darfur situation and takes action in regards to it.

He fights for Veterans in a big way.

He was against the Flag Burning amendment.

He calls the administration's bullshit:

The White House should follow this principle as well. Visiting Iraq for a few hours cannot resuscitate or justify a failed policy. No amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the bottom line: this war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by the White House, and that is why it has been so poorly received by the American people..

And it's troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire, treating this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major national challenge around which to rally the country.

He was anti FMA.  

And he does still deliver damn good speeches:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/

At the same time, he needs to follow his own advice: "It's the timidity - the smallness - of our politics that's holding us back right now. The idea that some problems are just too big to handle, and if you just ignore them, sooner or later, they'll go away. "

And he's jumping on the Newt Gingrich slogan: "Had Enough."  
The Take Back America speech is something else, I suggest reading it.
 http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060614-re marks_of_senator_barack_obama_take_back_ america/index.html

Sarbanes, Leahy and Levin are institutionalists; Obama, on the other hand, is an advocate for the third way, even if he tries to couch it in different terms.  And although I am pleased with most of his voting record, certain key votes remain bothersome.  But what are we to make of his public endorsement of Joe Lieberman?    

The problem- as I see it in a nutshell- is Obama's rhectoric. It really needs to be understand that the ability to be an opinion maker- and effect perception- is just as important as legislation.  Every time a Democrat opens his or her mouth- they need to think- is this or is this not helping? The things Obama- the problem with it- isn't that it's about religion at all. it's that he is repeating a false meme. And what's worse ,it's a false meme that hurts us in an attempt to say "see, I am with y ou" and Democrats are with you- it's just demonizing some false other. By creating this perception- it says we (Or part of us) haven't always been with you.

Let's contrast this with the Republicans manipulation and shaping of perception. They aren't always discpline, but they do have a sense of how communication isn't a one time event, but instead, something that happens over weeks, years and decades. Each time you open your mouth up you need to have the discipline to keep this in mind: Am I hurting or helping the cause that I want to champion. Here, I suspect his real point is that faith in public life is a good thing (I might add like any other quality or trait one would bring to the table). The problem is how he does it. There are smart ways to say things without offending part of your base, and dumb ways. There are smart ways to say I am with you, and dumb ways. There are smart ways to make a meme, and dumb ways. he choose the later (and sadly, like many democrats- probahbly without even knowing it).

Everyone has been lauding Webb's retort back to Felix since yesterday. But what we are really lauding is not just the retort's impact, but that someone shows that they get it. They aren't acting like the battered wife appologizing to the husband for getting in the way of the hand. Obama's approach- however well intended- are like the road to hell- he has good intentions, but the result is horrible for the party image. If he were truly concerned about the party image- he may want to start- not from the assumption that there is something wrong with us- but to say instead-we are a big tent- Christians and ahteists, men, women, black white, straight gay.

What I liked about his 2004 speech- and don't like about these later speeches- is that he has lost the inclusiveness elements. For me that 2004 speech had shades of MLK in it because it made us all aspire to be more. This speech- and his rhectoric in general- has tended to want to balkanize us. To that extent- to the extent that his rhectoric has balkanized rather than made us a community- that's my issue with him, not his legislative record.

I think this is an excellent example of the effect of over-generalization in communication in general, and certainly in the media (both mainstream and other).

I certainly have noticed an intellectual arrogance among some, perhaps just a few of the total, directed against people of faith, granted more often in Comments sections than in the bodies of articles themselves.

It would have been less incendiary if Obama had been more circumspect, to be sure. I find it hard to believe, in any case that his remarks are going to seriously influence any voter of whatever persuasion to change his mind about the progressive movement.

But on the other hand, for SOME participants in the process to repeat the error and imply that ALL people of faith are misguided is equally misguided. The case also needs to be made that at least SOME people of faith are actually rational human beings, with a sensitivity to and and willingness to work toward progressive goals. Some, apparently are not. Let's separate sheep and lambs, rather than branding the whole groups as wolly quadrupeds.

It seems that such generalizations are little more than polemical tools used to win debate points, rather than to rationally express a useful thought.

Of course, if the goal is heat and not light, never mind.

In his post, Archpundit is peddling a flat out lie in his defense of Barack Obama. See the details of this lie over at www.workingforchange.org/blog or by clicking here.

Progressive blogs like ArchPundit's should not deliberately mislead their readers in order to defend bad votes by politicians.

I followed the election closely and I don't remember seeing Hull attack Hynes ever.

Obama drubbed the competition in the primary. And it wasn't a weak field.

Blair Hull
Gerry Chico
Dan Hynes
Maria Pappas

I agree that the fawning over Obama gets absurd, but he won his primary race convincingly.

j1 j2 j3 j4 j5 j6 j7 j8 j9 j10 j11 j12 j13 j14 j15 j16